razz-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses return value structure with concrete examples ('crash cashout multipliers, dice rolls, RPS choices'), but omits operational constraints like rate limits, privacy restrictions (visibility of opponent data), or cache behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three efficient sentences with zero redundancy. The first establishes the action, the second details the return payload with specific examples, and the third provides usage timing. Every clause delivers distinct value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the returned data structure. It covers the business purpose (opponent reconnaissance) and return format. Minor deduction for lacking error handling or privacy scope documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not explicitly augment parameter semantics (e.g., explaining the regex pattern for playerId or limit constraints), but the examples of game data implicitly clarify the gameType options.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'a player's recent game history' with the specific purpose to 'analyze their play patterns.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like `razz_get_my_results` by emphasizing opponent analysis ('study opponents') rather than self-history retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear temporal context for invocation: 'before or during games.' However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar history tools like `razz_get_match_history` or `razz_get_my_results`, which could cause selection ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.